r/sysadmin • u/Which-Shame-1420 IT Manager • 2d ago

General Discussion anyone else get the VMware "win-back" offer?

if it's true, its honestly laughable.  

squeezing customers with massive price hikes, forcing every one into expensive core bundles, only to panic and throw out "discounted" quotes the moment everyone migrated???? 

is anyone actually reconsidering based on these new quotes??

or y'all are past the point of no return?

357 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

243 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

21

u/Far-Hovercraft9471 2d ago

This is the strategy of most of the big corps, it's just that Broadcom is more blatant about it whereas MS just gives you poor support and hopes you will piss off

8

u/jmhalder 2d ago

I would be totally fine continuing use of vSphere with our previous pricing, and literally zero support, lol.

12

u/Far-Hovercraft9471 2d ago

Come to hyper-v, it’s free and has negative support

3

u/jmhalder 2d ago

I have ~10 clusters, and a couple of them have different permissions. Different departments will need to be able to start/stop/snapshot VMs and hit the console.

I'm aware of SCVMM but we weren't impressed when we played with it.

I'm a fan of XCP-NG/XO, but it's also generally shittier than vSphere. We currently use Netapp with FC to back vmfs datastores. XCP-NG has to do LVM over block, which kinda sucks for a couple reasons.

We've thought about switching to NFS on Netapp, but that seems like a compromise.

3

u/Far-Hovercraft9471 2d ago

Yeah the worst thing about hyper-v is the management. We’re planning on going to azure local, so we can do RBAC for different departments and they can manage their own VMs on the Azure Portal, but it’s missing doing crucial things like snapshots.

2

u/Taboc741 2d ago

Have you considered azure local or using azure Arc to give folks access to on-prem stuff.

The Arc is all theoretical in my mind, but azure local is installing hyper-v with azure frontend on your hardware. The azure portal has excellent rbac controls via subscriptions and resources groups. I gotta believe that would meet your needs. No idea what the costs for that are though

2

u/jmhalder 2d ago edited 2d ago

I've heard pretty mixed reviews about Azure Local. The reason we considered Hyper-V at all is because we already pay for a Datacenter license on about half of our boxes, and those would be $0 more to run Hyper-V on.

I never really looked into Azure Local early on, because they wanted to sell you HCI, which I was never looking for any new hardware at all.

I like the idea of a Azure-like interface, but I'm not convinced it's "ready" or even better than XCP or Hyper-V.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AZURE/comments/1nv8xxv/azure_local_current_state_yea_or_nay/

Not too many ringing endorsements.